The libertarian message has finally become mainstream. And for this we have to thank Republican Ron Paul who after the Maine caucus results said “the revolution is only beginning”. In the long-run this will be great for our country. It means the electorate is waking up (or more accurately re-awakening) to the libertarian virtues of Individual Liberty, Personal Responsibility and Free Markets and not the faux versions promoted by Republican conservatism. But unfortunately, in the short term, the Democratics will be the primary beneficiaries of this phenomenon.
It may not seem like it, but Ron Paul is on fire. The libertarian message is typically relegated to the 1% range. The best showing of a Libertarian Presidential candidate was in 1980 when Ed Clark and David Koch (one of the Koch brothers) got almost one million votes, 1.06% of the popular vote. Ron Paul has been in the 15% range and sometimes much better, like the 36% he got in the Maine caucuses. We were all hoping he would win at least one primary contest but it doesn’t really matter; because it’s about the message, the message of LIBERTY.
Because Congressman Paul has been in the top 3 or 4 in every primary contest he’s being taken seriously. Not seriously enough that anyone thinks he can win the nomination but seriously enough to invite him on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, Fox News Sunday, CNN. And the message is getting out, well, at least to the political junkies.
Knowing he can’t win, Ron Paul’s goal is to influence the Republican Party and if he can get enough delegates he may well keep some or his supporters loyal to the Republican Party. But I don’t think most of them will be satisfied with a promise to investigate the Fed. No, they’ll look elsewhere and they’ll find Gary Johnson.
This is where it gets sticky for the Republicans and for the nation. Gary Johnson, the former Republican Governor of New Mexico, who managed to get in one, count ‘em, (1) Republican debate has bolted for the Libertarian Party and will likely get its nomination. So, here’s the bad news. Many of those newly recruited libertarians are going to help re-elect Barack Obama by voting for Gary Johnson.
This is going to be a close election. A lousy economy is bad for the incumbent as many of the independents who supported Barack Obama will have second thoughts about voting for him a second time. However, the Republicans are doing a great job of improving the Presidents chances. As I write this, it doesn’t really matter who the Republicans nominate; Romney, Santorum or Gingrich each of them has significant baggage and would be a weak candidate. If Romney loses in Michigan, a distinct possibility, the whole nomination process could be disrupted to the point that even Ron Paul could get the nomination. Ok, not really.
Hence, if the Libertarian candidate can impact a single state (Georgia with 16 electoral votes comes to mind) that would normally vote Republican; that one state could easily give Obama a second term. And I’m personally ok with that.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Romney Wins Iowa
If I’m wrong it won’t be as embarrassing as “Dewey Defeats Truman”, but then this ain’t exactly the Chicago Tribune.
This bizarre Republican Primary season and its flavor of the week madness have to come to an end and it just may be next week in Iowa.
I’m no fan of Romney; in fact, I’ve disliked him for quite a while. I also don’t like Bachman, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum (I REALLY don’t like Santorum) more on that later. Newt, I kinda like, except for the mischievous grin and the lunar mining idea. But at least he thinks outside the box and apparently even the planet. But back to Romney, he’s a Democratic (Dems don't like their political opponents to use Democrat, so I'm trying to be respectfully consistent), ok maybe not a registered Democratic but he was Governor of Mass for crying out loud. They don’t elect Republicans, Senator Brown being a rare exception and probably a one termer. But my big beef with Romney are his 5 sons. Not one even considered going into the military. When asked about their non service he said they serve by helping him get elected. Nice.
Rick Santorum; this guy actually believes that “Pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence meant obeying God and doing God’s work. This is outrageous, showing a total misunderstanding of our founding documents and brings into stark relief what a religious nut Santorum is. He is dangerous and should be kept as far away from the Presidency as possible.
Ron Paul. I’m a small and large L libertarian and the small L libertarian likes Mr. Paul except for this little race problem he seems to have. He’s been a good, consistent libertarian except that now we all have to deal with being associated with a possible racist. Great. Iowans will now rethink using Ron Paul to send their message of dissatisfaction with the field. They want to send a message but not one that makes them look bad. BTW, Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico recently quit the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party….so I now know for whom I’ll be voting for President.
So why is Romney going to come from behind and win Iowa? Because the Republican base is going to come to the realization that a long drawn out primary is not in their best interest and will only provide fuel for the campaigner-in-chief Barack Obama. Mr. Romney, as much as I hate to say it, is without doubt the one with the best chance to beat Mr. Obama. I think a campaign between Newt and Barack would be a lot more entertaining but politics isn’t a reality show, OK, it actually is a reality show and it's the best reality show on TV but that’s beside the point. If the Republicans don’t get behind Mitch soon they risk re-electing Mr. Obama.
This bizarre Republican Primary season and its flavor of the week madness have to come to an end and it just may be next week in Iowa.
I’m no fan of Romney; in fact, I’ve disliked him for quite a while. I also don’t like Bachman, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum (I REALLY don’t like Santorum) more on that later. Newt, I kinda like, except for the mischievous grin and the lunar mining idea. But at least he thinks outside the box and apparently even the planet. But back to Romney, he’s a Democratic (Dems don't like their political opponents to use Democrat, so I'm trying to be respectfully consistent), ok maybe not a registered Democratic but he was Governor of Mass for crying out loud. They don’t elect Republicans, Senator Brown being a rare exception and probably a one termer. But my big beef with Romney are his 5 sons. Not one even considered going into the military. When asked about their non service he said they serve by helping him get elected. Nice.
Rick Santorum; this guy actually believes that “Pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence meant obeying God and doing God’s work. This is outrageous, showing a total misunderstanding of our founding documents and brings into stark relief what a religious nut Santorum is. He is dangerous and should be kept as far away from the Presidency as possible.
Ron Paul. I’m a small and large L libertarian and the small L libertarian likes Mr. Paul except for this little race problem he seems to have. He’s been a good, consistent libertarian except that now we all have to deal with being associated with a possible racist. Great. Iowans will now rethink using Ron Paul to send their message of dissatisfaction with the field. They want to send a message but not one that makes them look bad. BTW, Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico recently quit the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party….so I now know for whom I’ll be voting for President.
So why is Romney going to come from behind and win Iowa? Because the Republican base is going to come to the realization that a long drawn out primary is not in their best interest and will only provide fuel for the campaigner-in-chief Barack Obama. Mr. Romney, as much as I hate to say it, is without doubt the one with the best chance to beat Mr. Obama. I think a campaign between Newt and Barack would be a lot more entertaining but politics isn’t a reality show, OK, it actually is a reality show and it's the best reality show on TV but that’s beside the point. If the Republicans don’t get behind Mitch soon they risk re-electing Mr. Obama.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Warren Buffett on tax rates and the benefits of a monetary printing press
Mr. Buffett on Charlie Rose recently said that the U.S. government credit rating should remain at AAA. His justification for that is we can continue to print money unlike the EU countries (Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal) currently suffering a significant sovereign debt crisis. He said those countries wished they had their printing press, implying that if they did their debt problems would disappear.
While Mr. Buffett is a strong capitalist it is apparent that he, like most is a believer in Keynesian Economics and as his recent Op Ed in the NY Times indicates a supporter of progressive taxation...in fact, it's not progressive enough for him. He wants to increases the marginal rates on incomes above $1M and even futher for incomes above $10M.
Jack LeMenager in a letter to the editor of the NY Times wrote, " The Internal Revenue Service’s own statistics indicate that if the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (households with annual income of more than $380,000) were taxed at a rate of 100 percent, it would net $938 billion, which would barely make a dent in the nation’s multitrillion-dollar annual budget." This would not come close to eliminating the deficit for a single year. While Mr. Buffett has not suggested any specific tax rates, any increase in marginal tax rates on small businesses will have an impact on job creation.
John F. Kennedy found high marginal tax rates to be bad for the economy. If it was bad for the economy in the 1960's it's bad for the economy now.
While Mr. Buffett is a strong capitalist it is apparent that he, like most is a believer in Keynesian Economics and as his recent Op Ed in the NY Times indicates a supporter of progressive taxation...in fact, it's not progressive enough for him. He wants to increases the marginal rates on incomes above $1M and even futher for incomes above $10M.
Jack LeMenager in a letter to the editor of the NY Times wrote, " The Internal Revenue Service’s own statistics indicate that if the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (households with annual income of more than $380,000) were taxed at a rate of 100 percent, it would net $938 billion, which would barely make a dent in the nation’s multitrillion-dollar annual budget." This would not come close to eliminating the deficit for a single year. While Mr. Buffett has not suggested any specific tax rates, any increase in marginal tax rates on small businesses will have an impact on job creation.
John F. Kennedy found high marginal tax rates to be bad for the economy. If it was bad for the economy in the 1960's it's bad for the economy now.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Rebuttal: “What our Declaration Really Said”, E. J. Dionne, Jr. July 4, 2011
It is amazing the depth of intellectual dishonesty in which the Left will engage to misinform the American public in an attempt to promote their agenda; the growth of government via the decimation of the Constitution’s concept of enumerated powers.
Mr. Dionne describes the Tea Party movement as being anti-tax, and while this is not inaccurate, it is misleading. The Tea Party is more about concern for the size of government. It is not a misplaced notion as everyone, even the Left, knows that our debt problems are due to the size of government and specifically the expansive (Progressive inspired and implemented) entitlement programs. Although even the Tea Party, when polled, are found to be hypocritical on this latter point as a majority of THEM are opposed to reforms to social security and Medicare. That they hold these views this is testimony to the success of the Progressives indoctrination over the last century or so.
But my problem with this piece is Mr. Dionne’s attempt to interpret The Declaration of Independence as a document about collective rights instead of individual rights. He states, “The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Where to begin…. yes, the founders wanted to pass laws not repeal them. This should not be surprising. Our Founders were men of the Enlightenment and were implementing their ideas of government in this new land, ideas that did not believe in an intrusive government. But reading this you’d think the Founders were channeling the not yet conceived Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. So, what laws did our Leftist Founders want to pass? The Declaration tells us:
• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people …(This charge refers to a grievance that arose because of the British government's fear that the popular assemblies of the colonies were growing too large and powerful as new communities were formed and additional representatives were elected to the assemblies of the colonies. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and New York passed laws allowing for the establishment of new communities with elected representatives to their respective popular assemblies, all of which were disallowed by King George. Virginia was also constrained by the same policy. The colonists insisted that representation in their assemblies was their right, because government must be by consent of the governed. The British maintained that representation was a privilege granted by the King.)
• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
Radical collectivist stuff, this. It certainly isn’t the positive law that Mr. Dionne and his ilk have been foisting on Americans for 100 years. But Mr. Dionne concludes from our Founder’s wanting to pass some basic laws necessary for proper self-government as benefiting “the public good” and “not about individuals or “the private sector”. Actually, those laws were about securing those previously elucidated “unalienable rights” which is without doubt a public good. Mr. Dionne should investigate what defined “the public good” in the 18th Century before inferring that it means the same in the 21st Century (again, thanks to Progressives). This is semantically dishonest.
Mr. Dionne then turns his attention briefly to the Constitution where he makes the correct assertion that it was created to provide for a stronger central government, but I submit not an all powerful central government. Again, those pesky enumerated powers explain categorically the role the federal government was to play. They may have said “We the People” and not “We the States” in the preamble but there’s nothing in the federalist papers that encourages future Hamiltonians to use the “Commerce Clause” to usurp the intent of enumerated powers. Not even Alexander himself said that and he wrote most of the Federalist Papers.
In Federalist number 23 Alexander Hamilton states the purposes for the union succinctly; “The principal purposes to be answered by union are these -- the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
It’s interesting to note that Hamilton sees regulation of commerce as the same internationally and domestically. Therefore, the commerce clause was seen as simply the regulation of commerce between the states and not as a loop hole for federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives. Later in the same document he wrote, “… it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers. ”
Yes, not understanding the intent of our Founders could cause us to make “some remarkably foolish choices”. Thanks to the Progressives interpretation we’ve been doing it for over 100 years.
Mr. Dionne describes the Tea Party movement as being anti-tax, and while this is not inaccurate, it is misleading. The Tea Party is more about concern for the size of government. It is not a misplaced notion as everyone, even the Left, knows that our debt problems are due to the size of government and specifically the expansive (Progressive inspired and implemented) entitlement programs. Although even the Tea Party, when polled, are found to be hypocritical on this latter point as a majority of THEM are opposed to reforms to social security and Medicare. That they hold these views this is testimony to the success of the Progressives indoctrination over the last century or so.
But my problem with this piece is Mr. Dionne’s attempt to interpret The Declaration of Independence as a document about collective rights instead of individual rights. He states, “The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Where to begin…. yes, the founders wanted to pass laws not repeal them. This should not be surprising. Our Founders were men of the Enlightenment and were implementing their ideas of government in this new land, ideas that did not believe in an intrusive government. But reading this you’d think the Founders were channeling the not yet conceived Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. So, what laws did our Leftist Founders want to pass? The Declaration tells us:
• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people …(This charge refers to a grievance that arose because of the British government's fear that the popular assemblies of the colonies were growing too large and powerful as new communities were formed and additional representatives were elected to the assemblies of the colonies. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and New York passed laws allowing for the establishment of new communities with elected representatives to their respective popular assemblies, all of which were disallowed by King George. Virginia was also constrained by the same policy. The colonists insisted that representation in their assemblies was their right, because government must be by consent of the governed. The British maintained that representation was a privilege granted by the King.)
• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
Radical collectivist stuff, this. It certainly isn’t the positive law that Mr. Dionne and his ilk have been foisting on Americans for 100 years. But Mr. Dionne concludes from our Founder’s wanting to pass some basic laws necessary for proper self-government as benefiting “the public good” and “not about individuals or “the private sector”. Actually, those laws were about securing those previously elucidated “unalienable rights” which is without doubt a public good. Mr. Dionne should investigate what defined “the public good” in the 18th Century before inferring that it means the same in the 21st Century (again, thanks to Progressives). This is semantically dishonest.
Mr. Dionne then turns his attention briefly to the Constitution where he makes the correct assertion that it was created to provide for a stronger central government, but I submit not an all powerful central government. Again, those pesky enumerated powers explain categorically the role the federal government was to play. They may have said “We the People” and not “We the States” in the preamble but there’s nothing in the federalist papers that encourages future Hamiltonians to use the “Commerce Clause” to usurp the intent of enumerated powers. Not even Alexander himself said that and he wrote most of the Federalist Papers.
In Federalist number 23 Alexander Hamilton states the purposes for the union succinctly; “The principal purposes to be answered by union are these -- the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
It’s interesting to note that Hamilton sees regulation of commerce as the same internationally and domestically. Therefore, the commerce clause was seen as simply the regulation of commerce between the states and not as a loop hole for federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives. Later in the same document he wrote, “… it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers. ”
Yes, not understanding the intent of our Founders could cause us to make “some remarkably foolish choices”. Thanks to the Progressives interpretation we’ve been doing it for over 100 years.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Atlas Shrugged
Atlas Shrugged has finally made it to the big screen. I found the movie entertaining and emotionally engaging. Is it a "great" movie. No. But it is a good movie with some technical and aesthetic flaws. Dialog in a screenplay of a typical novel is used primarily to develop the characters, the pictures tell the story. But Atlas Shrugged, as noted in the recent edition of "The New Individualist" is not a typical novel. There is an underlying philosophy and political message that can't be communicated completely with visuals, words are needed; specific words. So the dialog may come across as a bit stilted by someone who hasn't read the book. But I think the movie will entice a newcomer to read the book. And that is the ultimate goal of the film.
Friday, February 25, 2011
"Shock Doctrine, USA"? Please!!
Dr. Krugman writes that Governor Walker's efforts are "an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy." This is tenuous at best. These public employee unions are NOT a counterweight to powerfull corporations and the wealthy, they are a counterweight to their fellow citizens, the taxpayers, who, these days are anything but wealthy.
And what's so bad about privatization? Chicago privatized their parking meters to the tune of $3B. It was a good deal, except that they blew through the money to pay the excessive demands of the public employee unions.
To quote The Reverend Wright, "the chickens have come home to roost".
And what's so bad about privatization? Chicago privatized their parking meters to the tune of $3B. It was a good deal, except that they blew through the money to pay the excessive demands of the public employee unions.
To quote The Reverend Wright, "the chickens have come home to roost".
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Pope John Paul's II Miracles
It was determined that Pope John Paul II has only one more miracle to go to meet the requirement for Sainthood. Pope Benedict the XVI has approved the curing of Sister Simon-Pierre of Parkinson's disease, the same disease that Paul II suffered, as a miracle after she found herself cured upon waking from a dream about the dead Pope. She and others had been praying to John Paul II to help her. But I submit that another miracle is not required. Cardinal Bernard Law, formerly the Archbishop emeritus of the Diocese of Boston resigned that office on Dec. 13, 2002 and immediately left for Rome to become Archpriest of the Basilica de Santa Maria Maggiore, at the direction of John Paull II, allegedly only hours before Massachuettes State Troopers arrived with subpoeanas for his appearance before a Grand Jury investigating his part in the cover-up of child molestations. Pretty miraculous in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
